Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1887-08-19

Dallas Times (anti) Those who hug
the fond delusiOn that the PrOhibitiODists
have had enough should be undeceiyed.
II they are Democrats they are doing the
party an injury by cOunseliDg peace and
declaring tnet the war is over when the
PrOhibitionists stand with arms in their
hands ready TO strike. TwO-thirds Of
the newspapers in the state are prOhibi
ton 1t is but fair to suppose that they
voice the sentiment of their party. The
Times mas yet to read one that IS
willing 10 allow the prohibition ques-
| tiOn or matter rest where 1t is. Each
and every one of them Creditably utter
their true opinion. They declare that
prohibition is neither dead nCr dying.
They declare that 1t will be brought for
ward again ard again and that 1t is g
question that will never die. Now, this
being so, does the Democratic party in
tend to have this ism eternaly gnawing
st its vitsIs? Does It intend to keep
it in its stomach, or does it intend TO
vomit it up for the better health
of the party? If 1t does not intend to
treat it heroically, by the auti-plank
method, can it say that the late
election has accomplished anything? The
prohib papers declare that the majority
of Democratic voters favor this measure
which is in SO many words the an
nouncement that they, as Democrats,
favor sumptuary legislation. II this is
so, let the fact DE known. Let the Dem
. rcratic party OF Texas in convention in
, dorse prohibition or repudiate i. a mid
die course is not only confusing but IN
manly.
The Democratic party was to blame.
It brought about the present confusion.
1t was the cause of i'll feeling between
neighbors in the last campaign. 1t knew
/, this prohibition question was coming and
! il should have prepared itself. 1t should
have announced that prohibition was
T. neither relstive or q friend Of Demo
cracy. Had this been done the last
! race would have been q CleaD, clear
s cut one end many Democrats would
have been saved the embarrassment
they now labor under. 1t is apparent
|, thst there Wss mistake in not
i going further than the party has
. gone; that is, in not defining the word
sumptuary. The question now arises
sis it wisdom to continue the COnfusion?"
There are Democrats and snti-prohibitiOn
Il Democrats who seem to believe that such
L confusion as characterized the issues ID
i the past is better for the party than the
honest and business-like way OF stating
t what the party favors and what it OPP
: poses. In other words, they propose that
, the party shall leave the WORD
+ "sumptuary" in its platform and
Il every man shall define 1t accord
II ing to his own desires. They
o. would have the party continue in its con
= fusion to the disgust of men who want
y to know exactly where they stand. The
~ weakness of the party has always been 8
20 those points where this class Of Demo
&c Gratis stand. For years they have con
as coded any and all things. Whenever {
W member has originated some new tangled
20 notion and showed an inclination Il
VI leave the ranks those soft-hearteC
III soldiers have rushed after him witt
~ concessions and promises. The re
u. suit is that no Democrat knows VIZ
Us his political neighbor is or how he stands
VI y! The party is nearly s mob on local ans
Ut state affairs. There is q time to end this
and this is the time. Let the leader
G quit their counting. Let the platform
announce principles, and announce ther
y. so there can be no confusion, and thos
m who want to leave can be given heart
or goodbye. The men who advise agains
of an anti plank are doing harm, aud if the
he insist on their confusing methods le
m them depart also.